"Does the Reverse Trojan Horsing ploy also involve a willing party and an enthusiastic counter-party? If so, then perhaps."
If you are one of the two parties, you can know. Otherwise, you likely can't know. Suffice to say that the key is almost always exploitation for personal good, using the argument and perhaps even the (misplaced) conviction that this is for the greater good. This is how it has always worked and this is how it will continue to work for the foreseeable future. As far as I can tell.
In the earlier examples I gave, both Ericsson and VW exchanged some outdated IP for a lot of cash (via willing business) even as both put own futures in some degree of doubts.
However, Gencor (of South Africa) got nothing, did not sell its bio-leach gold technology. But team China today is world leader in bio-leach and Gencor no longer exist.
I would think in this way. Two someones at Ericsson and VW sold someone else's ideas for cash. Odds are personal good was involved at the expense of a larger view. But the arguments made would have been stellar. Gencor saw a different path. Was integrity or something else involved? We cannot know. But we do know that when David wins against Goliath, history remembers and celebrates. Forever. That forever shows that there is something happening in there that society simply does not want to forget, even if it cannot fully comprehend this. When David loses, he is buried unceremoniously and nobody but those very close to David know and remember. Because this is Lila, a divine game (to use a Tibetan instruction, yet another David) the countless forgotten Davids take nothing away from the importance of every one of these.
Go to any place where serious research goes on (academic or otherwise) and, if you have the eyes to see, you will see this in action every day. Some version of China sits in one corner office and some version of Google or Facebook sits in another. You have an idea? You can't. It's mine. If it's not, it will be, so it is.
Our understanding is driven by what we unconsciously accept. Our decisions are driven by our understanding. When we use words like "team", and "leader" and "great" (as in Maga) we may reveal our thinking without recognizing how the metaphors shape our understanding. These can have significant consequence. China and USA are large countries with diverse peoples, many suffering. Not teams as in football, where the idea is to run, toss a ball, and win. A leader is a steward of the people and the land first and foremost. Neither Xi nor Trump is a steward, no matter whatever else each is or how much each owns.And America is not "little" in any sense that needs it to be made "great". That metaphorical idea is a device used to fool a potentially sleeping people. America may need many things, but to be made "great" in any sense is not one of those things.
Everywhere you look, you tend to see "greedy algorithms" at work. A greedy algorithm is one that selects the best choice for the next move, but not the optimal choice for the given problem. How can you see this at work? Look at "leaders" in every organization who do what looks good for now and somehow is also the best for them to move up the food chain. What happens next is someone else's problem.
Give the people a little of this and a little of that. A lot of entertainment. And captivating metaphorical language. And off we go to play again.
Just my two bits of no consequence. :)
|
